8.4.2022 ERfolgreich!!! Einspruchsverfahren in Bezug auf die Taxonomieverordnung eingeleitet:

Wir haben gestern folgendes Email erhalten:
Just to let you know that ENVI-ECON coordinators officially decided to launch an objection procedure in relation to the complementary delegated act of the Taxonomy Regulation.
The timeline is as follows:- Draft motion(s) for resolution objecting to the Delegated Act will be sent to the joint committee secretariat 20 May 2022
- The vote in the ECON-ENVI Joint Committee on the draft motion(s) 14-16 June 2022 (tbc).
- In case a motion for resolution was adopted in the Joint ECON-ENVI Committee, plenary vote July plenary
The scrutiny period remains the same and will run until 11 July 2022.
Best regards,
Übersetzung: Nur um Sie wissen zu lassen, dass das ENVI-ECON-Komitee offiziell beschlossen hat, ein Einspruchsverfahren in Bezug auf den ergänzenden delegierten Rechtsakt der Taxonomieverordnung einzuleiten.
Der Zeitrahmen ist wie folgt:
- Der (die) Entschließungsantrag(e) zur Ablehnung des delegierten Rechtsakts wird dem Sekretariat des Gemeinsamen Ausschusses am 20. Mai 2022 übermittelt.
- Abstimmung im Gemischten Ausschuss ECON-ENVI über den (die) Antragsentwurf(e) vom 14. bis 16. Juni 2022 (ebk.).
- Für den Fall, dass ein Entschließungsantrag im Gemischten ECON-ENVI-Ausschuss angenommen wurde, Abstimmung im Plenum im Juli
Der Prüfungszeitraum bleibt unverändert und läuft bis zum 11. Juli 2022.
Alles Gute

Unsere Stellungnahme an die EU-Komission betreffend Aufnahme in die Taxonomieverordnung

Antwort der Europäischen Kommission


Dear Member of the European Commission,

we notice with great astonishment, that the EU-Commission wishes to add nuclear power in the taxonomy regulation as „green and sustainable“, including all subsidies that come with that status.

In an effort to answer the question of what makes nuclear energy „green and sustainable“, we appreciate getting answers tot he following details:

·         What happens to nuclear waste? Is there technology, that EU countries can recycle it? If yes, what technology is it. In the other event, this aspect clearly speaks AGAINST sustainability.


·         Since recycling seems not to be an option, how and where will nuclear waste be storaged? How can security of people´s and nature´s health be guaranteed?


·         The limited Resources/Raw material for nuclear power stations will only be available for about 20 years from now. How will these resources be substituted for medical purposes? Further, how can plans for „Mini nuclear power plants“ be of economic interest, when the realization probably happens near the end of resources available?


·         What economic and environmental advantage have subsidies, which are granted to actual nuclear power plants within the EU, some of which are 30+ years old?


·         Do you agree, that countries engaged in nuclear power, shall be required to invest ALL ALLOWANCES into improvements for the environment? Or, wouldn´t it be wiser, to stop all allowances to countries that are engaged in nuclear power? If this technology is an economic game changer, subsidies should not be necessary?


·         There is only one planet and climate/environment doesn´t know borders. Compared with the above, countries WITHOUT investment in nuclear power seem to have a high economic disadvantage. Doesn´t this clearly speak against the principle of equality?


·         Isn´t nuclear energy (USD 129 – USD 198 per MWH) more expensive compared to renewable energy, i.e. solar- (USD 29 – USD 38 per MWH), wind (USD 26 – USD 54 per MWH) energy? See: https://positionen.wienenergie.at/blog/gastbeitrag-die-atomkraft-ist-gescheitert/#:~:text=Lazard%20kommt%20zum%20Schluss%2C%20dass,(26%E2%80%9354%20%24)%20liegt


·         Who takes responsibility for accidents? How can the world be assured, that thousands or even millions of people will not severly suffer and/or die directly in connection with an accident or from the longterm harm? How will the people of countries without involvement in nuclear power be compensated?


·         Haven´t the Tschernobyl and Fukushima accidents showed dramatically enough, how dangerous this techmology is, irrespective if populistically called „small“ or big in size? 35 years after Tschernobyl, the country and people still suffer from the effects oft he accident. https://at.galileo.tv/life/tschernobyl-katastrophe-chronologie-zeitstrahl-wann-war-der-unfall-folgen/


·         The Tschernobyl accident wasn´t and isn´t a russian problem. Bavaria and Austria suffer from this accident. How can the EU neglect these facts? https://www.br.de/nachrichten/deutschland-welt/auch-35-jahre-nach-tschernobyl-gau-wildschweine-in-bayern-verstrahlt,SVaGQ1V.


·         The Fukushima accident ten years ago killed 20.000 people and the damage costs billions. https://www.bmk.gv.at/themen/klima_umwelt/strahlenschutz/notfall/notfaelle/fukushima-10-jahre.html. There is no plan for a safe handling. Do you really believe that the decision of the government to pump contaminated water into the sea, which ist he advise of certainly wise experts, is a good idea? Isn´t this rather a sign of helplessness? Again, this is independent from „small“, as the president of France tries to „talk it nice“, or big.


Our organization clearly declines the plan to add nuclear power in the taxonomy regulation as „green and sustainable“. We ask the EU-commission to definitely declare nuclear energy as NOT green and NOT sustainable. It is the duty of each and every member of the EU-commission to care for the peoples, their health and a safe environment. It is not the duty of the EU-commission to assist in the destruction of our planet, based on the short term interest of diverse lobbies.

Thank you for the attention and we are looking forward to a prudent decision taking of the EU-commission.

Brigitte Etzelsdorfer


Chairwoman LELOG
LEbensraum LOGisch
Society for environmental protection acc. to §19, par. 7
Weintorgasse 6
A-2102 Bisamberg
www.lelog.at, lelog@gmx.at
T: +43 680 2121571